Cook explains that the correlation between tree rings and thermometers is not reliable, so Mann should selectively throw out the data for any years which don’t support the hypothesis he is determined to prove.
What does “hide the decline” refer to?
Phil Jones’ email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to “hide the decline in global temperatures”. This is incorrect. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree-ring density at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. However, Muller doesn’t make this error – he clearly understands that global temperatures have been rising in recent decades as indicated by the instrumental record.
Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature, and hence tree-ring width and density is used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the “divergence problem”. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
h/t to Marc Morano
I completely agree with John’s statement. If the tree rings do not match temperature records during any portion of the measurement then tree rings should be discarded as worthless! Any Divergence during any portion of the comparison period makes the entire record meaningless!
John Cook can throw out all the other Bull he is slinging because this one issue falsifies all the claims made regarding AGW! The only thing left is they do not know!
Tree growth was related to temperature until 1960, then evolution happened.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/waiting_for_the_world/
Forget saving your grandchildren, eco-biddies. According to Flannery, the world won’t be safer until your grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren are on the scene.
We should embrace dear John Cook. His website is a constant reminder of how inadequate/inconclusive/unconvincing the IPCC is considered even by the most rabid AGWers
True, when all of this is over, if it ever gets over, we should save Cook’s (and many others) blatherings as an example group-think gone awry. Then we should start quantifying the damage done by these pinheads. Then, we should find the responsible parties and hold them accountable.
Why bother? Nobody cares about the Aristotelians that argued (and with so many quotes and references!) against Galileo.
Another thing: instrumental density. After 1960, and perhaps to be fair, ‘sometime in the sixties’, satellite measurements came into the fore, resulting in a higher-density dataset, which may indeed refute ALL tree-ring data. Exchanging ‘it was warm in 1956′ to it was EXACTLY this warm in 1966′ is in reality comparing apples to oranges. This’partial admission’ of poor data interpretation is a sneaky way of saying ‘we don’t really know’.
More Goddard desperation on display. Too bad Goddard doesn’t have the intellectual integrity to inform his gullible followers what others scientists outside his band of merry denialists have to say on the subject matter. Goddard wouldn’t dare.
It’s the nature of the beast.
Don’t you have anything worthwhile to do?
I don’t think I’m one of Goddard’s followers. I generally come up with my own thoughts. Spoonfeeding leaves a mess on your chin, BJ.
Setting the record straight is worthwhile.
But bj, you’re not stating anything.
For instance, this particular post is common, both alarmists and skeptics converse about this subject often. Yet, you make no statement on the myriad of points that can be made on the subject.
You act as if Steve isn’t telling us the whole story, yet here, he directly quotes one of the more popular alarmist blogs, and provides the link so we can read for ourselves what was stated.
Gosh, suyts, what did you infer from Goddard’s post above? Anything?
That there are some climate scientists that intentionally mislead the gullible public. Also, if one was to stay current and well read on the subject, we’d know that it isn’t the only divergence that was hidden from the public. Turns out, dendrochronology isn’t precise enough to be proxies for thermometers. Turns out, using it in this particular application puts it on the level of phrenology and numerology. And, postings such as this cannot be repeated enough.
In other words you accepted Goddard’s intent uncritically without actually having done any research yourself.
What if you actually removed your confirmation bias and went and did that research on your own to see where the science actually stands on the *entire* subject?
You can do that you know and I think you will be in for surprise, one of which is that John Cook is infinitely more intellectually honest than Goddard ever has been.
Then, of course, you can keep yourself in ignorance and make snake-oil salesmen a good living.
bj, you’re under mistaken impressions, and your reading comprehension is failing you. What part of “if one was to stay current and well read on the subject, we’d know that it isn’t the only divergence that was hidden from the public” did you not understand? To my knowledge, Steven hasn’t mentioned the other divergence problems. Perhaps, you aren’t familiar with it either?
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/21/hide-the-decline-the-other-deletion/#more-13308
Go there and work your way up. I would caution you though. The people there are less tolerant of banalities.
I’ve been to Mr. Cook’s site. Often. I’ve tried to engage him, too. Oddly, his responses are similar to yours. That is to say neither of you do. Cook is neither intellectual, nor honest.
No, I don’t accept Steve’s work uncritically, but it is difficult to argue with old newspaper clips and quotes from the sources. I have done my own research and found many of the works by some climatologists very wanting.
BJ, it is ignorance I fight against. An open an honest discussion is what I would enjoy the most. I’m not sure how you think Steve is making a living off of this blog, but I’m not sure it matters. Its known that alarmist sites are well funded. CA isn’t. WUWT isn’t. And, to my knowledge, neither is this one. Though, I believe Morano’s is.
BJ, go back to Grist and bask in your glory.
Has anyone here bothered to actually read any of the papers related to the tree ring divergence issue? Before casting stones you might want to be up on the actual research.
Sure Rob, what is it that you want to know?
Why wasn’t this allowed when I was studying biology in college thirty five years ago? My grades would have been a lot better, I wouldn’t have had to work so hard, and I might have gotten rich, or at least lived very comfortably, off of government grants. I like this new science, think I’ll go back to school.
Cook and Mann have discovered an interesting new tactic.
I wonder if it can be carried over into the world of soccer.
If your team lose just say that the result is unreliable.
If its unreliable then don’t count the result for the purposes of the league.
Result finds your team at the top of the league table
I suppose though all the teams would want to adopt this method .